God and Creation in Hinduism

by Jayaram V

Summary: This essay examines whether
God and Creation are the same or different according to various
schools of Hinduism, and how the divine qualities manifest in Nature
as described in the tenth chapter of the Bhagavadgita.

Are God and Creation the Same? This is one of the most interesting
questions, which led to a number of speculative philosophies in
the past. Hinduism is complicated because it accommodates a diversity
of opinions on almost everything, letting people draw their own
conclusions from a variety of thought processes to satisfy their
curiosity or choose their faith. Such diversity and depth of knowledge
can confound even inquisitive minds and create a lot of confusion.

People who practice Hinduism and take more than an ordinary interest
in its theology, history and philosophy understand the problem and
cope with it in their ways. Of late, we are witnessing a growing
intolerance among some Hindus, who want to promote certain dogma
and discourage others from engaging in the freedom of thought. If
we want to keep the spirit of Hinduism alive, we need to keep the
freedom of thought alive. The following discussion requires careful
attention because it can challenge many assumptions that we have
about the nature of the relationship between God and creation.

The Vedas proclaim God to be all pervading, silent, invisible
and not entirely knowable or comprehensible. He is a mysterious
being who does not fit into any particular definition, name or form.
He is neither Vishnu nor Shiva nor Brahma, but all of them and even
more. As the Kena Upanishad suggests, even gods have little clue
about him or his glory.

If you study the Upanishads and understand the subtle nuances
of the many verses in them, which describe or extol Brahman or Atman,
you will find that it is difficult to determine whether God is the
same as his creation or distinct from it. One of the striking descriptions
of Brahman is found in the Isa Upanishad. It begins with the beautiful
assertion that all this is inhabited by the Supreme Brahman. Everything
that exists here and moving is enveloped by him. It also affirms
that he is all pervading (sarva vyapi). He fills everyone and everything
like the air or the space upon earth.

The idea that God is hidden in everything and in everyone often
leads to the misleading conclusion that everything is God. Can we
draw that conclusion? Perhaps not. It is true that God is in everything,
but everything is not God. For example, if you are living in a house,
it does not mean that you are the house. You may be in someone’s
mind as an idea or an image, but by the mere fact of it you are
not considered the same as that person. If God and creation are
the same, then creation cannot be impure. It must be pure and divine
in every aspect. If it is so, the souls need not have to suffer
immensely upon earth or escape from here to the immortal world.

We know from the Vedas and Tantras that this is not the case.
From them we learn that God is pure, eternal, indestructible and
indefinable. Creation is both pure and impure and subject to impermanence
and modifications. It has both divine and demonic aspects. Some
parts of creation such as the higher worlds are brighter and divine,
and some such as the lower worlds are darker and demonic.

Does that mean God is not equally present in creation? Is he
partially present or absent in some? It cannot be because he equally
pervades everything, without any preference, likes or dislikes.
Then, from where is the diversity coming? Who is causing it? How
is it that some aspects of creation are more divine and worthy of
veneration, and some need to be avoided for our own good? To understand
this conundrum, we need to examine the relationship between God
and Nature, God and creation, and cause and effect. Let us examine
them in some detail.

God and Nature

Our scriptures primarily speak of two essential and eternal realities
of existence (sat), God (Purusha) and Nature (Prakriti). In Hinduism,
there is no unanimity among scholars about their relationship. Are
they the same or different? Is there any relationship between them
at all? If so, what type of relationship is it? If we can satisfactorily
find answers to these questions, we can also answer whether God
is the same as creation. Unfortunately, the task is not as simple
as it appears to be. The schools of Hinduism offer the following
alternative explanations.

God and Nature are the same. Nature is an integral and dependent
aspect of God. God is active and the cause of all creation.

God and Nature are different and independent. However, Nature
obeys the will of God and manifests creation.

God and Nature are different. Nature is not only independent
but also has a will of its own. God is passive and takes no
part in creation.

God does not exist. There is no creator. Only Nature exists.
The worlds, things and beings come into existence due to cause
and effect and the aggregation of matter and components of Nature.

According to the first school of thought, Nature is a dependent
aspect of God. God is the source of all including Nature. As the
efficient and material cause, he creates all the worlds and beings
out of his own Nature and envelops them in the web of Maya. He is
also responsible for the preservation and destruction of the world.

According to the second school, Primal Nature (Adi Shakti) and
God are independent and eternal realities. They do not depend upon
each other but in the beginning of of creation Nature becomes activated
by the will of God. Hence, God is the efficient cause, and Nature
is the material cause. Nature manifests things and beings, while
God remains as the passive witness and the ultimate enjoyer. At
the end of creation both fall into sleep.

According to the third school God and Nature are two distinct,
independent and eternal realities. God is passive, while Nature
is active. Nature manifests all creation by her own will, in which
God participates as a mere witness. This view is mostly represented
by the various subsects of Shaktism, who venerate Mother Goddess
as the source and the highest of all.

The fourth school is represented by atheistic, agnostic and materialistic
traditions such as Samkhya Yoga. They believe in individual souls
and Nature or objective reality (not-Self) rather than God or the
universal Self. The materialists (Lokayatas) did not even acknowledge
the existence of souls or transmigration. They believed that there
was no God, no afterlife, and death was the final liberation.

The first view is mostly held by the theistic traditions of Hinduism
such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, which emphasize the importance
of devotion to God. The Bhagavadgita holds a similar view. It speaks
of Nature as a dependent reality of Brahman. Brahman is both material
and efficient cause. However, they are not the same. Nature is in
Brahman, but Brahman is not in Nature. They are distinct. It is
confirmed when Lord Krishna declares (7.12) that all living beings
who contain the triple modes of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas exist in
him but he is not in them. He further states that Eightfold division
of Nature, consisting of the earth, water, fire, air, mind, intelligence
and ego, constitutes is inferior (apara), compared to his true nature,
which is superior (para). While Nature is the source of all beings
and materiality, God is the ultimate source of the creation and
dissolution of all.

Cause and effect

To understand the relationship or the duality (if any) between
God and Nature and between God and Creation, we also need to understand
the equation between cause and effect. Ancient Hindu philosophers
pondered over whether the cause and effect in manifestation were
the same or different without reaching any definitive conclusion.

We know that behind every effect there is a cause, and that cause
may in turn be the effect another cause. Ancient Indian philosophers
and theologians speculated upon not only whether there was any cause
of all causes and whether it had any correlation or substantial
connection with the effects it produced. For example, is the flower
the same as the tree? Is a tree same as the mother tree from which
it originated? Is a son the same as his father or mother? Are brothers
and sisters the same because they are all born from the same parents?

In Hinduism, we have both arguments. According to one line of
thought, the cause and effect are the same because the cause undergoes
transformation to become an effect. The same cause may produce numerous
effects. Each effect is an altered state of its cause. Accordingly,
the cause is always hidden in the effect which it produces, and
the effect is always hidden in the cause from which it arises.

In other words, no duality exists between cause and effect. They
represent the same reality, separated by time and place. The apparent
difference is just an illusion, which is temporary. This is true
whether the cause produces the effect by itself or joins with other
causes to produce a cumulative effect. As long as the cause exists
in any form, the potential for the effect to manifest exist. In
some cases, it is even difficult to separate the two.

According to a counter argument, the cause and effect are not
the same. The cause produces the illusion of effect, while it remains
the same. This may happen through either projection or reflection
or super imposition. The causes are thus not the same as their effects.
They represent two distinct realities. For example, the reflection
of the sun in water is not the Sun. It is just a temporary reflection.
The person is not the same as the reflection in the mirror. The
movie that appears on the screen is not the same as the film or
the projector which projects it. The body or the being is either
a superimposition upon the Self or a projection of the Self. Hence,
they are but two distinct realities that coexist without any connection.

The Nyaya Vaisheshika schools hold the third opinion, which is
different from both. According to this school cause and effect are
different from the onset. Effects cannot be hidden in the causes
because they do not exist at all prior to their manifestation. Every
manifestation (effect) is new. When numerous causes produce a cumulative
effect, the causes may be concurrent but the effect is wholly new
and different. Further, the whole is not the same as the parts.
Thus, this school went to the extreme to hold the pluralistic view
of creation.

God and creation

The correlation between cause and effect is important to understand
the correlation between God and creation. Secondly, we also need
to ascertain who the cause of creation is, whether it is God, Nature
or both. Considering the two factors, we can think of the following
possibilities regarding their relationship.

1. If God is the efficient and material cause of creation, if
Nature is a dependent aspect of him and acts under his will and
if we consider that the effect is an altered state of its cause,
it follows that creation is an aspect or altered state of God and
both represent the two states of the same ultimate reality.

2. If God is the efficient and material cause of creation, if
Nature is a dependent aspect of him and acts under his will and
if cause and effect are not the same, we may conclude that God and
creation not the same. Creation may exist in God and depend upon
him, but he does not exist in it.

3. If God is the efficient cause and Nature is the material cause,
if both are independent, distinct and eternal and if Nature exercises
its own will, we may safely assume that creation is different from
God, irrespective of whether cause and effect are the same or distinct
and irrespective of the process by which creation happens.

The predominant view is that Creation is different from God.
God exists in creation as the all pervading supreme Being. He is
in everyone and everything as a distinct supreme reality (apara).
However, He is not an essential or integral part of it. He remains
detached, impervious and untainted by the effects and modifications
that arise in the field of Nature.

The soul and the body

The correlation between the soul and the body is another important
criterion to determine the relationship between God and Creation.
If God is the soul of the universe, the material universe which
represents his creation and beingness is his body. We can extend
the same analogy to jivas or embodied souls. Pure consciousness
represents the soul. Everything that surrounds it or envelops it
(the mind, senses, intelligence and ego) represents the body.

They are distinct realities like the earth and the sky, which
never unite. The soul is in the body, but the body is not in the
soul. Hence, the soul is not affected by what happens to the body.
The body depends upon the soul. It perishes when the soul leaves
it. The soul is immutable, indestructible and eternal. Nothing can
touch it, taint it, alter it or destroy it. It is not the material
cause of the body. However, its presence in the tattvas of Nature
is necessary for the body to manifest.

Hinduism extends the analogy of the body and soul to the entire
creation and to the relationship between God and Nature and God
and creation. The supreme Being is the soul and the lord (Isvara)
of creation. The Supreme Being (Isvara) himself is a reflection
of Brahman (Parameswara) in the field of Nature. All the individual
souls cumulatively represent the pure consciousness of Isvara, while
the whole universe along with the entire creation represent his
material body.

Divine and demonic qualities

When we extend the analogy of the body and soul to the entire
creation, it becomes obvious that God and creation are not the same.
They represent distinct realities. God is transcendental, and creation
is immanent. God is the cause, and creation is the effect. Creation
exists in him, but he does not exist in them in the sense that he
is not an essential part of them. Therefore, whatever happens in
creation does not affect God. He remains untouched and untainted
by the modifications of Nature, just as he remains immutable and
incorruptible in the body of a living being.

When we accept these assumptions as true, we have to grapple
with other problems. The first one is, if God is not in creation
or not an integral part of creation, whether creation is completely
devoid of divine nature. Secondly, if God does not participate in
creation but remains a passive witness, does it mean that as the
product of Nature whether creation is completely evil and impure,
without any divinity?

Our theories of cosmology indicate that creation is not entirely
dark or an impure entity. Only parts of it are filled with sunless
worlds. In creation you will find sunlit words, sunless worlds and
mixed worlds. As we find in the tenth chapter of the Bhagavadgita,
God represents numerous aspects of creation. For example, he represents
all the divine qualities, seers and sages, the best and the purest
of all things, sacred rivers, mountains, numerous gods and goddesses
and so on. If God is not creation as declared in the Bhagavadgita
(7.12), how is it possible that he even represents some aspects
of it?

It is true that creation is filled with the impurities of Nature,
whereby whatever that manifests in it is subject to impermanence
and the influence of the triple gunas namely Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.
However, although God does not participate in it and is not the
cause of it, it is still suffused with his presence or his light,
just as the sunlight that pervades the earth although the Sun itself
is far away from it and is not a part of it. Just as the intensity
of its light varies from place to place and time to time, the intensity
of God’s presence determines whether a thing is divine or not.

God willfully does not do anything. He equally pervades everything
in creation. However, what determines the purity or sanctity of
a place, or an object, is the presence or absence of impurities.
Where the impurities of Nature are less, there the divine shines.
Where they are more, darkness prevails. Thus, depending upon the
presence or absence of Nature’s impurities, some aspects of his
creation are brighter and divine and some are darker and demonic.

Nirguna Brahman is without qualities, but the gods who manifest
from him, including Isvara, possess divine qualities. The same qualities
also manifest in creation wherever Nature’s impurities are absent.
For example, strength, beauty, perfection, symmetry, excellence,
purity, happiness, pleasure, lightness, brightness, courage, humility,
compassion, charity, honesty, etc., are considered divine qualities
because they arise from the pervading presence of God in creation.

These qualities manifest when the impurities of Nature are absent.
When the impurities are present, his light becomes covered by the
darkness of the gunas, resulting in the predominance of demonic
qualities such as pride, anger, envy, greed, fear, weakness, negligence,
slothfulness, etc. God is always pure. So is the soul. In creation,
they become enveloped by the impurities of Nature. In case of human
beings, they can achieve liberation only when they cleanse themselves
of all the impurities present in them and let the soul shine in
its pristine glory.

Conclusion

Thus, in Hinduism there is no unanimity about the relationship
between God and creation. Most schools agree that God is the cause,
and creation is the effect. However, they disagree about the way
it happens. The relationship between God and creation cannot be
ascertained unless we know the correlation between cause and effect
and between God and Nature. In both cases, we do not have definite
answers.

The question is further complicated by the fact that God himself
is an indeterminate reality. He is both the manifested and the unmanifested,
known and unknown, and with and without qualities, names and forms.
Even the Vedas are not sure whether he is responsible for creation
or not. Some hymns suggest that the mortal world was created by
Purusha, the Cosmic Being, out of himself by sacrificing his own
body. That Purusha manifested from Brahman in the beginning of creation.
We are not sure what existed before him.

The predominant belief is that God and Creation represent two
distinct realities. God is real. Creation is an illusion or a temporary
formation or projection. They are not the same. God pervades creation
but is not in it, nor is he touched by it. He remains impervious
to all the modifications that arise in the field of Nature. However,
as the support and upholder, he ensures the orderly progression
of creation. If certain areas in creation become filled with too
much darkness, he directly intervenes and destroys evil to restore
balance in them.

About: Hinduwebsite.com provides original
and scholarly information about Hinduism and related religions, society and
culture. We promote tolerance and the highest ideals reflected in these cultures.
We have been serving the world community since 1999.
More...